Call Now: (250)-374-6666

The same client mentioned below was charged again with three counts of possession for the purposes of trafficking. She had been arrested and searched a few days after being released on bail for the charges mentioned in the entry below. Again, Mr. van der Walle provided notice to the prosecutor of his Constitutional defense about 60 days before the trial. Again, Mr. van der Walle argued that his client had been illegally arrested and searched. And again, the prosecutor agreed. The charges were resolved with stay of proceedings before the trial. In the end, the client had been charged with six drug offences and was not convicted of a single offence. One happy client….

Client was charged with possessing three different substances all for the purposes of trafficking. A prior record for the same offence meant that the client would face a mandatory one year jail sentence if convicted. Mr. van der Walle provided the prosecutor with his Constitutional argument two months before the trial. It was the defense’s position that the client’s purse had been illegally searched. The prosecutor agreed and stayed the proceedings (effectively killing the case) about one week before the trial.

Client charged with impaired driving after he crashed his vehicle on a dirt road on the way home. He had been arrested and provided a sample of his breath nearly twice the legal limit. Mr. van der Walle discussed the case with the Crown in the days leading up to the trial and the prosecutor agreed that she would not be able to prove her case. Client pled guilty to driving without due care and attention. Client kept licence and paid a small fine.

Client charged with possession for the purposes of trafficking after police executed a warrant at her house and discovered a substantial amount of cocaine. Client hired Mr. van der Walle after the preliminary inquiry as she was unhappy that both of her prior lawyers advised her to plead guilty because she had “no chance” at trial. Mr. van der Walle sent the prosecutor his written argument on why the search warrant was invalid two weeks before the trial. A few days later the charges were dropped. No trial necessary. Not guilty.

Client was charged with a variety of weapons offences after he was found in the driver’s seat of a Cadillac Escalade surrounded by weapons such as knives, bear mace, and brass knuckles. After hearing submissions from Mr. van der Walle the judge agreed that there was insufficient evidence to prove that the client had knowledge the weapons were there. Not guilty of all charges. Client did not testify.

Client charged with trafficking cocaine to an undercover police officer. The seller of the cocaine was pulled over minutes after the transaction by another police officer so the police could identify him using his driver’s licence. After hearing argument from Mr. van der Walle the judge agreed that because the officer failed to get the culprit to remove his sunglasses the evidence was insufficient to prove the identity of the culprit beyond a reasonable doubt. Client did not testify. Not guilty.

Client charged with theft of electricity, production of marihuana and possession for the purposes of trafficking. The police had obtained a warrant authorizing them to search the client’s house for theft of electricity. When they did so they found a 700 plant grow op. After hearing argument from Mr. van der Walle the judge agreed that the Justice of the Peace had given inappropriate guidance to the police in seeking their warrant. As a result the judge quashed the warrant and ruled all the evidence inadmissible. Client acquitted of all charges.

Client provided a sample of his breath to police that showed at the time of driving he was over 4 times the legal limit. As a result he was charged with impaired driving. On the day of trial the prosecutor became aware that she had serious problems with her evidence. Charges dropped on the day of trial. Client kept licence and did not even pay a fine.

Client was convicted at trial of driving while prohibited. He testified that he drove because of a life threatening medical emergency. On appeal Mr. van der Walle argued that the trial judge had made fundamental errors of law in her assessment of the client’s credibility. The appeal judge agreed that the trial judge made serious errors. New trial ordered.

Client crashed her car. At the hospital she consented to blood samples being taken from her. Analysis showed that she had more than twice the legal limit of alcohol in her system at the time the accident occurred. After lengthy discussions with the Crown, Mr. van der Walle was able convince the prosecutor to drop the criminal charges and accept a guilty plea to driving without due care and attention. Client kept licence and paid a small fine. No criminal record and no loss of licence.